duskblade-- too powerful?

[ThirdWizard]

By 13th level, when he gains Full Attack arcane channeling, the Duskblade can make three attacks per round. And there's nothing preventing him from making each of them against a different opponent.

Hey, with TWF (or ITWF) he can get even more. But, now he's got to be surrounded by enemies (it only works for melee) and spreading his attacks out, which are really subpar strategies, or at the very least his strategies become very niche oriented. That's why I don't consider Arcance Channeling to be too powerful.

Though, I suppose the spiked chain wielding, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip monkey, with Arcane Channeling might be a tad annoying.

 

[BadMojo]

Hey, with TWF (or ITWF) he can get even more. But, now he's got to be surrounded by enemies (it only works for melee) and spreading his attacks out, which are really subpar strategies, or at the very least his strategies become very niche oriented. That's why I don't consider Arcance Channeling to be too powerful.

Yeah, being surrounded by enemies with only medium armor and D8 hitdice is pretty risky. You'd best hope whatever spell you Channel kills at least one of your foes.

 

[brehobit]

Though, I suppose the spiked chain wielding, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip monkey, with Arcane Channeling might be a tad annoying.

Oh ick. I'd read the ability as only working for your attacks during the full round action. But as written AoO also get the bonus. Ouchy ouch ouch.

Mark

 

[MarkB]

Oh ick. I'd read the ability as only working for your attacks during the full round action. But as written AoO also get the bonus. Ouchy ouch ouch.

It's a little unclear, in fact. It says the spell is discharged at the end of the round, but "end of the round" is practically a null concept under 3.5e's cyclical initiative system. It could be interpreted either as "just before your next initiative", or "at the end of your turn". I'd tend to go for the latter on balance grounds.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It's a little unclear, in fact. It says the spell is discharged at the end of the round, but "end of the round" is practically a null concept under 3.5e's cyclical initiative system. It could be interpreted either as "just before your next initiative", or "at the end of your turn". I'd tend to go for the latter on balance grounds.

Technically, I think, the round still exists as an artifact, reseting after the initiative count loops from low to high. This is one of the few places that references it, and while I personally doubt they meant for that, it appears to the best of my knowledge to be what it says, unfortunately.

Personally, I wouldn't run it like that because I don't reference Initiative numbers after setting up the order, and I'm not looking to add back that level of complexity. I'm not sure, however, which of those two methods to use in my games so far.

Anybody know who wrote the Duskblade?

 

[Stalker0]

I actually think it's a lot weaker than it's "cousin" the Mageblade and I've yet to hear anyone call that "broken".

Well for one, I think AE classes in general are a little stronger than their 3.5 counterparts. Also, the mageblade has 3 medium saves to a duskblades 2 GOOD saves...and the big difference, the duskblade has a full BAB. A full BAB is a big bonus for any fighter type.

 

[evilbob]

To me, the wording of "each target you hit" means that the spell will not affect one person more than once. In other words, in order to get the full effect, you have to hit a different target creature with each iterative attack (or off hand attack). Even if you use shocking grasp and hit the same guy with six attacks that round, shocking grasp will still only affect them once. That's how I told my group I was going to run it.

Several people have chimed in on this, and it's a little bit off the OP's topic, but I wanted to say that I actually disagree with this interpretation. I cannot think of a precedent in which "each target you hit" specifically implies that a target cannot be the same creature more than once; every time "each target" is used to mean that, it is followed with the phrase "no two of which may be the same." A full attack strikes any number of targets with any number of attacks (as discussed above) including one target multiple times, so I see no reason why a Duskblade could not target the spell multiple times on one "target."

Hopefully that made sense. Darn you words that can be either a noun or a verb!

 

[ThirdWizard]

Several people have chimed in on this, and it's a little bit off the OP's topic, but I wanted to say that I actually disagree with this interpretation. I cannot think of a precedent in which "each target you hit" specifically implies that a target cannot be the same creature more than once; every time "each target" is used to mean that, it is followed with the phrase "no two of which may be the same." A full attack strikes any number of targets with any number of attacks (as discussed above) including one target multiple times, so I see no reason why a Duskblade could not target the spell multiple times on one "target."

Hopefully that made sense. Darn you words that can be either a noun or a verb!

Ah, but it says "... the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round." Basically IF you hit them that round THEN they are affected. Not WHEN you hit them they are affected. If it said "... the spell affects each target you hit with a melee attack," I might agree with you. However, becuase of the "each target you hit... this round" thing, I'm more inclined to say that it means litterally, the spell affects each target you hit in the round.

 

[evilbob]

Ah, but it says "... the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round." Basically IF you hit them that round THEN they are affected. Not WHEN you hit them they are affected. If it said "... the spell affects each target you hit with a melee attack," I might agree with you. However, becuase of the "each target you hit... this round" thing, I'm more inclined to say that it means litterally, the spell affects each target you hit in the round.

Ah, that's a good point, and I see what you're saying. I still don't interpret it that way, however, because it is unlike most other "attack" precedents, in which an effect is resolved at the end of the individual attack action and not at the end of the attack sequence / round, which is what I believe you are saying. Your way might imply that you couldn't even apply your shocking grasp damage until you made sure you were finished making any AoOs that round as well, since you must wait until all hits are resolved for the entire round to see who is affected, and I do believe that AoOs are included in "each target you hit in melee combat that round." (In fact, you could conceivably run into the situation of being hit later in the round by the enemy you were trying to shock who would not have actually been up because you were waiting to apply the shocking grasp damage until all possible attacks by you were resolved.)

Edit: Oh, and to the OP: yes, I agree that having something on the order of 11 shocking grasps at level 13 that can be delivered potentially three (or more with AoOs) times to a single target is extremely powerful. However, so are level 7 spells like finger of death and mass hold person, which a full wizard could (theoretically) do at the same level.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Your way might imply that you couldn't even apply your shocking grasp damage until you made sure you were finished making any AoOs that round as well, since you must wait until all hits are resolved for the entire round to see who is affected, and I do believe that AoOs are included in "each target you hit in melee combat that round."

I was hoping it wouldn't come up because it really does sound wonky. That is a possible implication of my reading, unfortunately. But, I blame the author, not myself!